ML20215J854
| ML20215J854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J430 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-6, NUDOCS 8610270215 | |
| Download: ML20215J854 (9) | |
Text
e _ . . . . - _ _ _ . . .
l ! IJNCC"T?0!1E0 COPY l ~-~~{;,n'~}g.J,,;,JQ, g ,j s, ,
^
f J TITLE REVIEW OF DRAWING , SPECIFICATIONS AtO OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS NUMBER DAP-4 Revision hepared Date Flcyiewed Date Approved Date Tlk)W 9b3l5f' I0l4l!I og Gtpaa va R4 % d44 ,1<ia sam _ % 14t ** & %
3"'ri3,4 wuk QLv 'lis N@ +/n 9
l l
l co' rrROLLED COPY NO 9I -. me i
O TN-85-6262/6 i l RBA"I88aR8868a243 -
t A PDR
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Cov e r S h e e t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 T ab le o f Con t e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . il I.0 P URP O S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESP ONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4.0 I NS T R UCT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.0 DO CUME NT AT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 t
l l
TN-85-6262/6 li
COMANCIE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6
Title:
REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3
, AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS l.0 PURPOSE This procedure defines the methods to be used in the Design Adequacy Program for the review of Design Output Documents (i.e., design drawings, specifications, and vendor documents and drawings).
2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies to the review of the Output Design Documents used in the CPSES Design of the systems addressed by the Design Adequacy Program.
The Design Output Documents will be reviewed against the oppropriate CPSES design criteria to ensure that the output documents address all necessary design criterio. Additional implementing docements are used to define attributes against which design output documents will be reviewed.
This procedure does not address the review of Design implementing Documents.
The review of implementing documents is addressed in DAP-S.
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4
3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 Criterion A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design
, requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be
- capable of performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project
) requirement or commitment.
TN-85-6262/6 Page 1 of 7
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6
Title:
REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS 3.1.2 Output Document Output documents are design documents (such as drawings and specifications) that define technical requirements of systems, structures, and components.
Vendor documentation / drawings and any design documentation that is not otherwise classified as design input or implementing documents are included in this definition.
3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for selecting the type and number of output documents to be reviewed in each area. The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for assigning Reviewers.
3.2.2 Reviewer The Peviewer is responsible for completing reviews of assigned review topics in
- accordance with this procedure, using oppropriate checklists, ensuring that the check is occurate, and checking that work done under his (or her) direction is
- correct.
3.2.3 Assigned Personnel Assigned personnel perform verificotton activities under the direction of the l Reviewer.
i TN-85-6262/6 Page 2 of 7 l
COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6
Title:
REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS 3.2.4 Checker Checkers are responsible for verifying the occuracy of the Reviewers or Assigned Personnel's work.
4.0 INSTRUCTION e
4.1 Identification of Reviewer For each review topic listed in the description of the DAP self-initiated
^
evoluotion contained in the CPRT Program Plon, the oppropriate Discipline Coordinator shall select on individual who shall function as the Reviewer for that i
topic and shall be responsible for the completion of the checklists associated with that topic (i.e., the Design Review Summary and Design Review Evoluotion described in DAP 4 as Attachments B and C, respectively, or alternative checklists developed in occordance with DAP 4). The identified Reviewer shall meet the qualification requirements of DAP-IS. The Discipline Coordinator may act as the Reviewer, provided that he meets the qualification requirements of DAP-15. Assigned personnel working under the direction of a Reviewer sho:1 have been trained in this procedure and shall have received any technical training deemed oppropriate by the Reviewer, but need not meet the qualifico-tion requirements applicoble to the Reviewer. If the Reviewer determines that such technical training is necessary, the requirement of the training, its scope, and its completion shall be documented.
4.2 Customization of Checklist Forms and Identification of Specific Documents For Review The Reviewer shall review the Design Review Evoluotion checklist forms applicable to the review topic that have been released for use by the Discipline TN-85-6262/6 Page 3 of 7
4 QUACY PROCEDURE
,E ICATIONS Revision: 3 V E
UTPU. DOCUMENTS ther the forms require supple-
=
for in DAP 4 (including the nsnts D and E of DAP 4). He mmme to to customize the checklist !
l 211 be selected for review in ld:nt!fiad to be reviewed, shall ts. If the applicable document 85, it shall be used for review.
fate prior to April I,1985, and b ed in Section 4.4. ~_. - -
ents shall be the latest - --
e
_ f T C'
- ,Ja_ . _
- ; 7 lccoro ..ee with DAP 20. WNW5E_ W5sk+&.yg,3...,z.g._
direction of the Reviewer, shall d documsnts in the " Reference" e sufficiently complete to allow
>f the document being reviewed.
d and page of the calculation, as ? _
> sed. The reference information aurse of the review.
E enducted by using the checklists alzed in accordance with Section termine whether individual design O Page 4 of 7 mm
r- 1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Nurnber: DAP-6 Titi : REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTFER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS ;
documents appropriately comply with the applicable design criteria. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall examine all items on the checklist and ;
indicate whether each item was found to be satisfactory, unsatisfactory, not checked, or not opplicable. "Not Checked" or "NC" may be used when a standard checklist form is used to perform o limited review of a given subject such that on applicable crea was excluded from the review scope. "Not Applicable" or "NA" may be used when en item on a standard checklist form is not applicable to the subject being reviewed. Where the appropriate use of "NA" or "NC" would not be apparent to o qualified reviewer, the use of "NA" or "NC" on the checklist should be accompanied by on explanation in the " Comments" column or by on
ottochment to the checklist which provides the basis for the use of "NA" or "NC". Although not required, it is reccmmended that a reference be provided to the checklist (s) where the items marked "NC" are reviewed. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall also indicate the basis for determining the verification conclusion (e.g., visual inspection of document, field walkdown, calculation review, and independent calculation), and the acceptance criteria applicable to the attribute being evoluoted, if not otherwise included in the checklist form.
For self-initiated review creas, completed checklists shall indicate the homo-geneous design activity (HDA) number associated with each checklists item (attribute). This con be accomplished by indicating the HDA number in the
" Comments" column or on on ottochment tht clearly establishes the correlation.
This is not required for checklists used for overview of corrective action programs.
l The " Comments" column may also be used for any other comments on the attribute, its implementation or its verification, l
l TN-85-6262/6 Page 5 of 7
I 4
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6
Title:
REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTFER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS 4.4 Current Document Revisions After March 31,1985 This section applies to self-initiated review scopes. As noted above, special review considerations are applicable to documents for which the current revision ld of the document is dated later than March 31,1985. In such cases, the following steps shall be completed by the Reviewer or Assigned Personnel:
o The last revision prior to April 1,1985, shall be obtained.
o All revisions between the revision obtained in the previous step and the current revision shall be identified and obtained, o The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall determine the differences among the revisions and the causes for those revisions.
o A review shall be conducted using the current revision of the document and the appropriate design review evalua-tion checklist completed,
~
o Appropriate design review evoluotion checklists shall be completed to document the review against the review attributes of those aspects of the previous revisions of the document that were changed in the latest revision. The
" Sot /Unsat/NA/NC" column shall be marked as oppro-priate. Items that are "Unsot" in the previous revisions shall be processed in accordance with 4.5 (below) in spite of any correction that may have been made in the current revision.
4.5 Processino of Unsatisfactory items items found to be unsatisfactory shall be so noted on the checklist, and shall also be separately complied and processed in accord nce with the procedures outlined in DAP-2. The DlR number assigned to each unsatisfactory item shall be listed in the " Comments" column, or as on ottachment to the completed checklist with suitable traceability to each unsatisfactory item. l TN-85-6262/6 Page 6 of 7
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6
Title:
REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 O AND OTFER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS l
4.6 Approval
)
)
If the checklist is completed by Assigned Personnel, the " Comments" column shall be annotated with the name or initials of the person who performed the l verification. The Reviewer shall ossure himself of the adequacy of the completed checklist and sign the " Reviewer" space.
After a checkilst is completed and signed by the Reviewer, the Discipline Coordinator shall designate o Checker.
The Checker shall verify the occuracy of the checklist by reviewing at least 10 percent of the checklist items or a minimum of 5 Items. After all comments or questions are resolved with the Reviewer, the Checker shall sign the checklist in the " Checker" space and return to the Discipline Coordinator. The checklist shall be opproved by the Discipline Coordinator, who shall sigr. ft.e " Approved By" line of the checklist sheet. if the Discipline Coordinator is also the Reviewer, he shall sign both spaces.
5.0 DOCUMENTATION Upon opproval, checklist identification numbers are assigned in accordance with Section 5.3 of DAP-14. Each completed checklist shall be forwarded to the DAP l Manager for filing in accordance with DAP-14.
l l
l TN-85-6262/6 Page 7 of 7
- , . - - _ . _ - - . ... - - - _ _ . _ _ . - . - _ . - _ . . . - _ _ _ - _ - . - .